Abstract P2-09-02: ICRP analysis: Environmental influences in breast cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract The International Cancer Research Partnership (ICRP[1]) is an alliance of governmental and charitable organizations from the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia and Japan funding regional, national and international cancer research grants and awards. One key activity of the partnership is a database of information about member’s funded grant projects (N>60,000 grants, from 80 members, totalling over $14 billion USD). Each project is coded to a Common Scientific Outline (CSO), a classification system of broad areas of cancer research. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide, however, only about 5-10% of breast cancer is attributable to genetic predisposition,[2] and about one third of cases are attributable to known genetic or other risk factors. In 2013, the Interagency Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Coordinating Committee (IBCERCC)[3] recommended that funding organizations plan strategically to accelerate the pace of scientific research on breast cancer and the environment. Thus, the ICRP has developed a mechanism to track activity and trends in research into environmental influences on breast cancer, to provide a baseline for future assessment of progress. Methods: ICRP-funded grants related to environmental influences on breast cancer were queried from the ICRP database. We focused on three time points: awards that were active in 2006, 2008 or 2010. The search resulted in a pool of 11983 breast cancer-relevant awards that was narrowed further to 1107 awards of relevance using a combination of keyword searches and specific Common Scientific Outline (CSO) codes.[4] Relevant awards were then coded with the assistance of keywords and manual review, to one or more, of 6 categories of environmental research: Behavior-Lifestyle, Behavior-Tobacco exposure, Chemicals-Chemical pollutants, Chemicals-Exogenous hormones, General Infection-Microorganisms and Radiation. Results: Between 2006 and 2010, the numbers of active awards declined and funding levels also fell. Most of the funded research is focused on behavioral/lifestyle factors in breast cancer (e.g., diet, alcohol intake, and shift work patterns). Further analysis of the Behavioral/Lifestyle category reveals that the major area of activity is in the role of nutrition/alcohol in cancer, closely followed by the contribution of obesity and reproductive factors (age of menarche, parity etc.). Conclusion: We were able to utilize a CSO ‘filter’ to identify trends in funded grant projects related to the environment and breast cancer. The decline in numbers and research funding between 2006 and 2010 is concerning. As breast cancer incidence continues to increase, research efforts to understand the causes of increased incidence are essential. Further research investment in these areas may be required. [1] https://www.icrpartnership.org/index.cfm [2] http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/assets/docs_a_e/environmental_factors_and_breast_cancer_risk_508.pdf [3] https://www.niehs.nih.gov/about/assets/docs/summary_of_recs_508.pdf (Accessed 28/2/14) [4] CSO areas 2.1, 2.3, 1.2, 2.4, 6.2 (Etiology, Basic Biology of cancer initiation, and surveillance). Citation Format: Marc S Hurlbert, Senaida Poole, Kari Wojtanik, Samantha Finstad, Lynne Davies. ICRP analysis: Environmental influences in breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-09-02.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,041 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,012 | 0,036 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,026 | 0,005 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».